How did he not get done for this
MeerKat
What reason can anyone have for doing this other than to cause mayhem &
injury
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/07/newsstory14353848t0.asp
Marc
see lodge signs from across a courtroom?
leandr42
No indication of why the case was dropped.
IIRC, there was going to be a group action by the cyclists for
compensation for their losses. There's no reason why that shouldn't still
go ahead. The article says hundreds of cyclists got punctures. Even if
they only claim for a new inner tube each, that's still a substantial bill.
--
Rob
Judith Smith
Did he confess - or was there clear evidence that it was he?
JNugent
Is this another road tacks thread?
JNugent
> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/07/newsstory14353848t0.asp
Do you even pause to consider the possibilities that:
(a) he was not guilty, or
(b) that there was insufficuient evidence for a conviction or committal?
JNugent
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:49:57 -0000, wrote:
>
>> The guy who sabotaged last years Etape Caledonia gets off scot free.
>> What reason can anyone have for doing this other than to cause mayhem &
>> injury
>>
>> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/07/newsstory14353848t0.asp
>
> No indication of why the case was dropped.
Indeed. It could be anything. It could be that there was no evidence.
The Medway Handyman
How fucking funny is that?
'Hundreds of cyclists were left with punctures'
Ha ha ha!
�After full and careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances by
Crown counsel, it was decided there should be no further proceedings.�
So, the guy the cyclists accused was entirely innocent.
Ha ha ha!
Its quite clear that the local residents simply didn't want hundreds of
cyclotwats fucking up their road network. Because they regard cyclists as a
PITA - just like the majority of the population.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
Roger Merriman
> leandr42 wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:49:57 -0000, wrote:
> >
> >> The guy who sabotaged last years Etape Caledonia gets off scot free.
> >> What reason can anyone have for doing this other than to cause mayhem &
> >> injury
> >>
> >> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/07/newsstory14353848t0.asp
> >
> > No indication of why the case was dropped.
>
> Indeed. It could be anything. It could be that there was no evidence.
most likely. they might be fairly sure but unless there is evidence then
there is case to be had.
>
> > IIRC, there was going to be a group action by the cyclists for
> > compensation for their losses. There's no reason why that shouldn't
> > still go ahead. The article says hundreds of cyclists got punctures.
> > Even if they only claim for a new inner tube each, that's still a
> > substantial bill.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Squashme
So says the Bodger who obviously has only just heard about it.
Meanwhile a local says:-
" CaptainMainwaring - Member (Singletrack Forum)
I am a local and live right on the route of the Etap. The whole police
investigation has been a complete joke with some of the key interviews
not taking place until 6 months after the event. I'm just totally
disgusted, but at least 2 days in the nick and lots of local hassle
may stop anybody else thinking about doing anything similar. BTW, I
know for a fact this guy absolutely does not have the support of the
vast majority people around Rannoch or anywhere else.
On a more positive note, the organisers are taking steps to make sure
there can be no repeat this year, entries are up on last year, 99% of
the local population are fully supportive of the event, and we have
organised perfect weather for that weekend "
&
"It's a disgrace, but lets move on.
FWIW, ACRE [the anti-closed roads group] has effectively no local
support. Their justification for continued protest is a small local
survey they did before the first event 3 years ago, when a lot of
people (including me) were against it. Opinion has now totally
changed, with all local businesses and nearly everyone else (including
me) supporting it."
And from a local Bridge of Gaur guesthouse's site:-
"We hope you check out the Etape Calendonia 2009 race photos. It was a
real shame that someone caused so much mayhem with the carpet tacks,
but we are pleased to hear the race will be back on track next year.
We had a lovely morning cheering on the competitors. Well done to
everyone who took part and raising so much money for Macmillan Cancer
Charity."
By the way, some gander sauce here:-
http://www.defensedevices.com/caltrops.html
Mr Benn
news:ZSu1n.23412$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on the
road but if a mass of cyclists want to hold an event, why don't they hire a
track they can race on somewhere rather than use public roads? The primary
purpose of public roads is to provide a means for cars, bicycles,
motorcycles, vans and lorries to travel as a means of transport, not for
recreational purposes.
Mas...@bp.com
The primary
> purpose of public roads is to provide a means for cars, bicycles,
> motorcycles, vans and lorries to travel as a means of transport, not for
> recreational purposes.
Does that mean all of these signs should get taken down then?
http://jenga.footboot.net/archives/scenic%20route.JPG
--
Simon Mason
mileburner
"Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi71jn$hnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on the
> road but if a mass of cyclists want to hold an event, why don't they hire
> a track they can race on somewhere rather than use public roads? The
> primary purpose of public roads is to provide a means for cars, bicycles,
> motorcycles, vans and lorries to travel as a means of transport, not for
> recreational purposes.
No normal rational and sane person would agree with the sabotage, however
this does open up to debate whether a sports event should be allowed on the
public highway. Like other events (such as the London Marathon), the roads
were closed to other traffic while the event was taking place. AIUI the
saboteur's action were linked to his religious convictions and based on the
fact that the roads would be closed that Sunday causing inconvenience to him
(and other good, Church going people), by stopping them going to Church that
day.
However, if road closures are banned for cycling sports events, it seems
only reasonable that that closures be banned for *all* sports events.
But if events are allowed to proceed on roads open to the public, there is
the danger to both the participants and the general public to consider.
Presumably Medway would just ban all sport.
Tony Dragon
What part of Scotland is that sign in?
--
Tony Dragon
leandr42
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>> leandr42 wrote:
>> > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:49:57 -0000, wrote:
>> >
>> >> The guy who sabotaged last years Etape Caledonia gets off scot free.
>> >> What reason can anyone have for doing this other than to cause
>> mayhem &
>> >> injury
>> >>
>> >> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/07/newsstory14353848t0.asp
>> >
>> > No indication of why the case was dropped.
>>
>> Indeed. It could be anything. It could be that there was no evidence.
>
> most likely. they might be fairly sure but unless there is evidence then
> there is case to be had.
I don't think it would have got that far if there was no evidence, but
maybe there was insufficient evidence to make it beyond reasonable doubt.
However, for a civil case, a lower standard of balance of probability
applies (i.e. better than 50/50), so that's why I wondered if the civil
case is still going ahead. (I'm assuming Scottish law is the same as
English in this respect - it may not be.)
>> > IIRC, there was going to be a group action by the cyclists for
>> > compensation for their losses. There's no reason why that shouldn't
>> > still go ahead. The article says hundreds of cyclists got punctures.
>> > Even if they only claim for a new inner tube each, that's still a
>> > substantial bill.
--
Rob
Mas...@bp.com
Have this one then, if we want to be pedantic.
http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/A6RHDF.jpg
--
Simon Mason
Squashme
Public roads NOT for recreational purposes?! Incredible.
And so you would ban 4x4s, then? RUVs and SUVs, aren't they often?
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And tourists.
http://www.woodfarm-barns.co.uk/images/Suffolk_Tourist_Route.jpg
--
Simon Mason
JNugent
> "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hi71jn$hnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on the
>> road but if a mass of cyclists want to hold an event, why don't they hire
>> a track they can race on somewhere rather than use public roads? The
>> primary purpose of public roads is to provide a means for cars, bicycles,
>> motorcycles, vans and lorries to travel as a means of transport, not for
>> recreational purposes.
>
> No normal rational and sane person would agree with the sabotage, however
> this does open up to debate whether a sports event should be allowed on the
> public highway. Like other events (such as the London Marathon), the roads
> were closed to other traffic while the event was taking place. AIUI the
> saboteur's action were linked to his religious convictions and based on the
> fact that the roads would be closed that Sunday causing inconvenience to him
> (and other good, Church going people), by stopping them going to Church that
> day.
Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it. You don't have a get
out of jail free card for libel actions against you (I assume).
> However, if road closures are banned for cycling sports events, it seems
> only reasonable that that closures be banned for *all* sports events.
Absolutely 100% correct.
> But if events are allowed to proceed on roads open to the public, there is
> the danger to both the participants and the general public to consider.
> Presumably Medway would just ban all sport.
I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be facilitated.
JNugent
> On 8 Jan, 10:32, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:ZSu1n.23412$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> MeerKat" <gixers600@"remove wrote:
>>>> The guy who sabotaged last years Etape Caledonia gets off scot free.
>>>> What reason can anyone have for doing this other than to cause mayhem
>>>> & injury
>>>> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/01/07/newsstory14353848t0.asp
>>> How fucking funny is that?
>>> 'Hundreds of cyclists were left with punctures'
>>> Ha ha ha!
>>> "After full and careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances
>>> So, the guy the cyclists accused was entirely innocent.
>>> Ha ha ha!
>>> Its quite clear that the local residents simply didn't want hundreds of
>>> cyclotwats fucking up their road network. Because they regard cyclists as
>>> a PITA - just like the majority of the population.
>> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on the
>> road but if a mass of cyclists want to hold an event, why don't they hire a
>> track they can race on somewhere rather than use public roads? The primary
>> purpose of public roads is to provide a means for cars, bicycles,
>> motorcycles, vans and lorries to travel as a means of transport, not for
>> recreational purposes.
>
> Public roads NOT for recreational purposes?! Incredible.
>
> And so you would ban 4x4s, then? RUVs and SUVs, aren't they often?
Are there words missing from the above post?
JNugent
How often are the roads you have mentioned closed to general traffic so that
"tourists" may use them?
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What has being closed got to do with it?
Mr Benn said:
"The purpose of public roads is... not for
recreational purposes."
I would contend that lengthy scenic routes and tourists routes are for
"recreational purposes".
The Jim Clark Memorial Rally for cars would have to be banned though
as it is on closed roads, if you are going to ban the cycling Etape.
--
Simon Mason
d...@telent.net
> What has being closed got to do with it?
>
> Mr Benn said:
>
> "The purpose of public roads is... not for
> recreational purposes."
See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85 Cr App Rep
143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional Court, and Director of
Public Prosecutions v Jones and another, House of Lords
-dan
JNugent
> On 8 Jan, 12:34, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>> On 8 Jan, 11:42, Squashme <squas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8 Jan, 10:32, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:ZSu1n.23412$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>> MeerKat" <gixers600@"remove wrote:
> What has being closed got to do with it?
> Mr Benn said:
> "The purpose of public roads is... not for
> recreational purposes."
...in the context of a road being closed for a cycle race (or something
similar if not exactly a race - not that it matters in the slightest).
> I would contend that lengthy scenic routes and tourists routes are for
> "recreational purposes".
So is the A12 when I'm on my way to the theatre in London.
> The Jim Clark Memorial Rally for cars would have to be banned though
> as it is on closed roads, if you are going to ban the cycling Etape.
I thought I'd made my view clear: the roads are for public use and should
never be closed to general traffic for the benefit of a select group of any sort.
Mas...@bp.com
> I thought I'd made my view clear: the roads are for public use and should
> never be closed to general traffic for the benefit of a select group of any sort.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thankfully for rally drivers, Etape riders, marathon runners and the
Queen (for her Jubilee), your "views" are not taken into account
whenever these events are organised.
--
Simon Mason
leandr42
wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hi71jn$hnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on
>>> the road
> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
Really? You have evidence for that? Not proceeding in no way demonstrate
he didn't do it. I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case
was subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
facts out and prove their innocence.
I suspect he has a letter saying they are not going to proceed which in no
way says he didn't do it, just that it's not in the public interest to
proceed. We know there was enough evidence to charge him. Maybe that
evidence proved to be unsound, or contradictory evidence was found. But
the reference to "circumstances" in the quote suggests something else.
Maybe he has a heart condition and it was thought he couldn't stand the
stress of a trial. Maybe he made it clear he was going to offer a
religious defence for his actions and the PTB that be didn't like the idea
of the precedents that might set if successful. There are many
possibilities; that someone else did it seems one of the less likely ones
to me.
> I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
> facilitated.
So you'd effectively put an end to the various road closures that
facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry other
road races that take place in this country every year? There's a few off
road ones, but the large majority have at least some road closures
particularly round the start/finish line, it simply wouldn't be safe
otherwise. These events get probably millions of people involved in
physical activity and raise a lot for charity.
How about sporting events that are not on the road but require road
closures because of the number of people they attract. I believe there are
a lot of road closures when there is (was?) a grand prix at Silverstone.
And if road closures for all sporting events - which after all are only
entertainment - are out, how about street parties, village festivals and
the like? Some big charity events require road closures, would they not
happen in your world? I've been to one of these events:
http://www.torrington-cavaliers.co.uk/Bonfires and jolly impressive it was
too. IIRC they closed not just a road but the whole town centre.
What a miserable old curmudgeon you are. Good job the PTB have more sense
than you.
--
Rob
mileburner
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:KeudncjUos6fu9rW...@pipex.net...
> mileburner wrote:
>>
>> No normal rational and sane person would agree with the sabotage, however
>> this does open up to debate whether a sports event should be allowed on
>> the public highway. Like other events (such as the London Marathon), the
>> roads were closed to other traffic while the event was taking place. AIUI
>> the saboteur's action were linked to his religious convictions and based
>> on the fact that the roads would be closed that Sunday causing
>> inconvenience to him (and other good, Church going people), by stopping
>> them going to Church that day.
>
> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it. You don't have a
> get out of jail free card for libel actions against you (I assume).
I refer the right hounourable gentleman to "the saboteur", there clearly was
one, the person who sprinkled the tacks. Do you have inside information as
to his identity?
>> However, if road closures are banned for cycling sports events, it seems
>> only reasonable that that closures be banned for *all* sports events.
>
> Absolutely 100% correct.
I think that is a matter which ought to be decided largely by public
opinion. After all, the roads belong to everyone.
>> But if events are allowed to proceed on roads open to the public, there
>> is the danger to both the participants and the general public to
>> consider.
>> Presumably Medway would just ban all sport.
>
> I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
> facilitated.
Personally, (and it is only a matter of opinion) I disagree. So long as any
sport (running cycling walking etc) takes place within the law and any
organised event is properly managed. On the basis that motorists and
commuters do not have any kind of exclusive rights to use the roads. They
belong to everyone.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> I thought I'd made my view clear: the roads are for public use and should
>> never be closed to general traffic for the benefit of a select group of any sort.
> Thankfully for rally drivers, Etape riders, marathon runners and the
> Queen (for her Jubilee), your "views" are not taken into account
> whenever these events are organised.
I expect you are very happy that those needy and underprivileged groups are
handed such largesse by the public.
JNugent
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:33:05 -0000, JNugent
> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hi71jn$hnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on
>>>> the road
>
>> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
>
> Really? You have evidence for that?
I knew you'd jump at that one.
If there's been (sufficient) evidence, he'd have been prosecuted. He wasn't,
so there isn't. So much for him. Have they declined to prosecute *you* for it
yet?
> Not proceeding in no way demonstrate
> he didn't do it. I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case
> was subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
> facts out and prove their innocence.
I'd rather not be prosecuted at all for things I haven't done - wouldn't you?
> I suspect he has a letter saying they are not going to proceed
Make your mind up.
> which in
> no way says he didn't do it, just that it's not in the public interest
> to proceed.
Let's hope he never sees that post of yours, eh?
> We know there was enough evidence to charge him.
How do you think you "know" that?
That would be a good one to answer.
> Maybe that
> evidence proved to be unsound, or contradictory evidence was found.
Are you capable of keeping a thought going in the same direction for two
consecutive sentences?
> But
> the reference to "circumstances" in the quote suggests something else.
> Maybe he has a heart condition and it was thought he couldn't stand the
> stress of a trial. Maybe he made it clear he was going to offer a
> religious defence for his actions and the PTB that be didn't like the
> idea of the precedents that might set if successful. There are many
> possibilities; that someone else did it seems one of the less likely
> ones to me.
Yes, but you're one of those who "argues" for life-long driving bans for
being involved - perhaps even passively - in any traffic incident in which a
cyclist was also involved, aren't you? For you, is seems that the idea of
guilt is associated with just anything that might be to a cyclist's disadvantage.
>> I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
>> facilitated.
> So you'd effectively put an end to the various road closures that
> facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry
> other road races that take place in this country every year?
Yes.
They can be held in places other than on the road.
> There's a
> few off road ones, but the large majority have at least some road
> closures particularly round the start/finish line, it simply wouldn't be
> safe otherwise. These events get probably millions of people involved in
> physical activity and raise a lot for charity.
And?
> How about sporting events that are not on the road but require road
> closures because of the number of people they attract. I believe there
> are a lot of road closures when there is (was?) a grand prix at
> Silverstone.
Planning issues. I agree that there is a case for restricting the size of
*any* event if it causes undue traffic pressure in the locality. It is in
fact one of the things that the planning authority *must* consider and take
into account before the development even takes place.
> And if road closures for all sporting events - which after all are only
> entertainment - are out, how about street parties, village festivals and
> the like? Some big charity events require road closures, would they not
> happen in your world? I've been to one of these events:
> http://www.torrington-cavaliers.co.uk/Bonfires and jolly impressive it
> was too. IIRC they closed not just a road but the whole town centre.
> What a miserable old curmudgeon you are. Good job the PTB have more
> sense than you.
It's soeasy to be liberal with other peoples' rights and/or money, isn't it?
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
> news:KeudncjUos6fu9rW...@pipex.net...
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> No normal rational and sane person would agree with the sabotage, however
>>> this does open up to debate whether a sports event should be allowed on
>>> the public highway. Like other events (such as the London Marathon), the
>>> roads were closed to other traffic while the event was taking place. AIUI
>>> the saboteur's action were linked to his religious convictions and based
>>> on the fact that the roads would be closed that Sunday causing
>>> inconvenience to him (and other good, Church going people), by stopping
>>> them going to Church that day.
>> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it. You don't have a
>> get out of jail free card for libel actions against you (I assume).
>
> I refer the right hounourable gentleman to "the saboteur", there clearly was
> one, the person who sprinkled the tacks. Do you have inside information as
> to his identity?
No.
And if I did, I'd probably keep quiet about it, not being as vindictive as
some obviously are.
>>> However, if road closures are banned for cycling sports events, it seems
>>> only reasonable that that closures be banned for *all* sports events.
>> Absolutely 100% correct.
> I think that is a matter which ought to be decided largely by public
> opinion. After all, the roads belong to everyone.
But not for exclusive use by anyone (emergencies excepted).
>>> But if events are allowed to proceed on roads open to the public, there
>>> is the danger to both the participants and the general public to
>>> consider.
>>> Presumably Medway would just ban all sport.
>> I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
>> facilitated.
> Personally, (and it is only a matter of opinion) I disagree. So long as any
> sport (running cycling walking etc) takes place within the law and any
> organised event is properly managed. On the basis that motorists and
> commuters do not have any kind of exclusive rights to use the roads. They
> belong to everyone
...certainly *including* (and not excluding) motorists and commuters.
Judith Smith
Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?
d...@telent.net
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:01:33 +0000, d...@telent.net wrote:
>
>>"Mas...@BP.com" <Mas...@BP.com> writes:
>>
>>> What has being closed got to do with it?
>>>
>>> Mr Benn said:
>>>
>>> "The purpose of public roads is... not for
>>> recreational purposes."
>>
>>See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85 Cr App Rep
>>143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional Court, and Director of
>>Public Prosecutions v Jones and another, House of Lords
>
> Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?
Have you changed email addresses? I'm sure I used to have you killfiled
Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular goes
into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the public highway.
But if you have the time (and as you're reading Usenet, I assume you
must have) I do recommend you set some aside to read the whole thing.
Google will find it for you.
-dan
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> I think that is a matter which ought to be decided largely by public
>> opinion. After all, the roads belong to everyone.
>
> But not for exclusive use by anyone (emergencies excepted).
It is only exclusive use for a short period of time and it is a kind gesture
for the wider community to allow a select group to use it.
The same applies to marches, protests, carnivals, even street markets.
JNugent
It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge brought
against some people who were apparently seen to be obstructing the highway.
They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of assembly.
It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion. It was
nothing to do with the authorities closing a road so as to exclude general
traffic from it and enabling some private activity to take place on the highway.
d...@telent.net
> d...@telent.net wrote:
>
>> Judith Smith <judit...@live.co.uk> writes:
>>> d...@telent.net wrote:
>>>>"Mas...@BP.com" <Mas...@BP.com> writes:
>
>>>>> What has being closed got to do with it?
>
>>>>> Mr Benn said:
>>>>> "The purpose of public roads is... not for
>>>>> recreational purposes."
>
>>>> See also Hirst and Agu v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 85 Cr App Rep
>>>> 143, 151 JP 304, [1987] Crim LR 330 Divisional Court, and Director of
>>>> Public Prosecutions v Jones and another, House of Lords
>>> Is there a particular part of that which you believe is relevant?
>
>> Have you changed email addresses? I'm sure I used to have you killfiled
>
>> Yes, the first few pages of the DPP vs Jones case in particular goes
>> into a lot of detail about the reasonable uses of the public highway.
>> But if you have the time (and as you're reading Usenet, I assume you
>> must have) I do recommend you set some aside to read the whole thing.
>> Google will find it for you.
>
> It appears to be about a wilful obstruction of the highway charge
> brought against some people who were apparently seen to be obstructing
> the highway.
>
> They got off with it on appeal - something about the right of assembly.
>
> It's very easy to distinguish it from the point under discussion
The point of discussion in the immediate thread is "Mr Benn"'s assertion
that
"The purpose of public roads is... not for recreational purposes."
The purposes of public roads are manifold and, as illustrated by the Law
Lords findings in these cases as well as other posts upthread, encompass
many uses that could be characterised as "recreational". Indeed, some
public roads (for example the majority of footpaths, bridlepaths and
"green lanes") are probably *primarily* used for recreational purposes.
-dan
leandr42
wrote:
> leandr42 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:33:05 -0000, JNugent
>>> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
>> Really? You have evidence for that?
>
> If there's been (sufficient) evidence, he'd have been prosecuted. He
> wasn't...
Er...
prosecute v.tr. 1 institute legal proceedings against (a person).
[COD, other dictionaries have pretty much identical wording]
"ALL CHARGES have been dropped..."
"Alexander Grosset, of Bridge of Gaur, Rannoch, was charged in May..."
So he was prosecuted (proceedings were instituted) and the prosecution
was (much later) abandoned.
>> I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case was
>> subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
>> facts out and prove their innocence.
>
> I'd rather not be prosecuted at all for things I haven't done - wouldn't
> you?
If I'd been very publicly but wrongly accused of a nasty little offence
then I might wish to set the record straight. He is a man of some public
standing, who was known to be against the event and whose reputation has
suffered as a result of the accusation. In that situation, if I had
nothing to do with it, I might well want my name publicly cleared - not
proceeding definitely hasn't done that.
>> We know there was enough evidence to charge him.
>
> How do you think you "know" that?
Er, because the newspaper article says so? If you don't like a local
newspaper as a source, there are plenty more, how about The Times? Not the
newspaper of record it once was, but still pretty authoritative on such
things IMO.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6328018.ece
"A solicitor who chairs a community council has appeared in court..."
"The single charge against Mr Grosset..."
"...the case was continued for further examination by Sheriff Michael
Fletcher."
If there was no evidence, or just flimsy evidence, the charge would have
been dropped at that point.
As you seem to have a problem with a local newspaper report as evidence,
I'll continue with The Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6979500.ece
"Charges were dropped yesterday against the church elder accused of
throwing down tacks upon the road in order to disrupt Scotland’s most
prestigious cycle race."
"The Crown refused to give any explanation why proceedings against
Alexander Grosset had been abandoned."
In England, the PTB will use phrases such as "insufficient evidence" if
that's why the case was dropped. Absence of such phrases suggests there's
another reason.
> Yes, but you're one of those who "argues" for life-long driving bans for
> being involved - perhaps even passively - in any traffic incident in
> which a cyclist was also involved, aren't you? For you, is seems that
> the idea of guilt is associated with just anything that might be to a
> cyclist's disadvantage.
You've really lost it, haven't you. You don't seem to know what prosecute
means, and I've never argued for anything of the kind in my life, and I
disagree with those that do (can't remember if I've posted to that
effect). I believe passionately in justice. If it can be shown that he did
it, he should be prosecuted and sentenced appropriately. If he didn't, he
should be found not guilty. If it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that he did it, he should be found not guilty. I don't know if he did it
or not, but the evidence publicly available suggests there is a case to
answer, and it should be heard. To my mind, the more serious aspect was
probably damaging the emergency vehicles.
"The police said they had no plans to charge anyone else in connection
with the sabotage." [The Times again]
This is police code for "we think we got the right man, we're not going to
look for anybody else". And they may or may not care about a cycling event
being disrupted, but you can bet they were not happy about emergency
vehicles being damaged, they get very pissed off about that kind of thing.
>>> I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
>>> facilitated.
>
>> So you'd effectively put an end to the various road closures that
>> facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry
>> other road races that take place in this country every year?
>
> Yes.
>
> They can be held in places other than on the road.
I doubt it. To start with, we're talking about road racing. Track and
cross country are different events that don't require road closures. Where
on earth would you hold a road race for 34,000 people (London Marathon) or
54,000 (Great North Run). These events take over wide streets. (Hint: you
couldn't do it on a motor racing circuit. They're no wider than the
streets used for these events, so the competitors would fill them. In big
events, it can take upwards of half an hour for all the competitors to
cross the line. If you did it at Silverstone (3 mile lap, one of the
longer ones I believe) the leaders - who will run a mile roughly every 5
minutes - will have completed 1 lap before half the field has crossed the
start line. Or rather they wouldn't, they'd be hopelessly and
frustratingly trying to get past people running in silly costumes at the
back of the field. And going to London to run a 26 mile route is a big
thing for lots of people, I think a lot less people would want to run 9
laps of Silverstone. The London Marathon raised over £40m last year. A lot
of charities would be very unhappy if it was stopped, or had much reduced
numbers).
>> There's a few off road ones, but the large majority have at least some
>> road closures particularly round the start/finish line, it simply
>> wouldn't be safe otherwise. These events get probably millions of
>> people involved in physical activity and raise a lot for charity.
>
> And?
Health problems arising from lack of exercise are a serious issue in this
country and these events get people moving. And the amount they raise for
charity is enormous. They're almost always held on Sundays, and in most
places (highlands of Scotland excepted) there are easy alternative routes,
so the negative economic impact must be small. You're entitled to your
opinion that roads should not be closed, but an event of any size is not
possible without using public roads and is not safe without road closures,
so you're arguing that road racing should end in the UK. Which would be a
pity as we have some people who are rather good at it. And the rest of the
world, who have similar arrangements for similar events would think we
were very strange.
>> How about sporting events that are not on the road but require road
>> closures because of the number of people they attract. I believe there
>> are a lot of road closures when there is (was?) a grand prix at
>> Silverstone.
>
> Planning issues. I agree that there is a case for restricting the size
> of *any* event if it causes undue traffic pressure in the locality. It
> is in fact one of the things that the planning authority *must* consider
> and take into account before the development even takes place.
Ah, so the planners should have anticipated how big the All England Tennis
Club's championship was going to get when it started (if they had planners
in those days). Or the event should be limited in size. I should think the
roads in that area can cope with less than half of what they actually get,
even with closures. (They're not full closures, just all the roads in the
area are made one way running away from Wimbledon. I was once stuck a mile
from the tennis trying to get to somewhere a mile on the other side, it
was more or less impossible.)
>> And if road closures for all sporting events - which after all are only
>> entertainment - are out, how about street parties, village festivals
>> and the like? Some big charity events require road closures, would
>> they not happen in your world? I've been to one of these events:
>> http://www.torrington-cavaliers.co.uk/Bonfires and jolly impressive it
>> was too. IIRC they closed not just a road but the whole town centre.
>
>> What a miserable old curmudgeon you are. Good job the PTB have more
>> sense than you.
>
> It's soeasy to be liberal with other peoples' rights and/or money, isn't
> it?
What on earth has that got to do with enjoying a music festival I've been
to in a Cotswold village where they close the road because it's the only
flat bit of land on which to hold a public gathering? And people have
rights, not just motorists. The rights of different interests are taken
into account when deciding if a road can be closed.
You don't seem to understand basic terminology on the Alexander Grosset
issue, and you're just a curmudgeon about road closures who wants to stop
people having a good time and raising money for charity.
Hope you find the plot again soon. You might then find a way to do
something better with your life than trolling. Over to you for the last
word, I've got better things to do on a Friday evening.
<Sigh. I only posted originally to see if anyone knew what was happening
on the civil action.>
--
Rob
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> leandr42 wrote:
>>> JNugent
>>>> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
>>> Really? You have evidence for that?
>> If there's been (sufficient) evidence, he'd have been prosecuted. He
>> wasn't...
> Er...
> prosecute v.tr. 1 institute legal proceedings against (a person).
> [COD, other dictionaries have pretty much identical wording]
> "ALL CHARGES have been dropped..."
> "Alexander Grosset, of Bridge of Gaur, Rannoch, was charged in May..."
> So he was prosecuted (proceedings were instituted) and the prosecution
> was (much later) abandoned.
On reflection, correct.
I should have used the word "tried".
>>> I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case was
>>> subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
>>> facts out and prove their innocence.
>> I'd rather not be prosecuted at all for things I haven't done -
>> wouldn't you?
> If I'd been very publicly but wrongly accused of a nasty little offence
> then I might wish to set the record straight. He is a man of some public
> standing, who was known to be against the event and whose reputation has
> suffered as a result of the accusation. In that situation, if I had
> nothing to do with it, I might well want my name publicly cleared - not
> proceeding definitely hasn't done that.
That would be enough for me.
Going to court is unpredictable. The chairman of the bench might be a Simon
Mason (or a Doug) on a bad day.
>>> We know there was enough evidence to charge him.
>> How do you think you "know" that?
> Er, because the newspaper article says so? If you don't like a local
> newspaper as a source, there are plenty more, how about The Times? Not
> the newspaper of record it once was, but still pretty authoritative on
> such things IMO.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6328018.ece
No, no, no...
The charges were dropped, which seems to indicate that the charges were
ill-advised, hasty, based on faulty perceptions of the evidence", or all
three (and maybe more).
IOW, there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge him. It was just that someone
(wrongly) thought that there was.
[snip rest of stuff predicated on the (presumably) wrongly-brought charges
having (presumably correctly) been dropped]
>> Yes, but you're one of those who "argues" for life-long driving bans
>> for being involved - perhaps even passively - in any traffic incident
>> in which a cyclist was also involved, aren't you? For you, is seems
>> that the idea of guilt is associated with just anything that might be
>> to a cyclist's disadvantage.
> You've really lost it, haven't you. You don't seem to know what
> prosecute means, and I've never argued for anything of the kind in my
> life
Please accept my apologies.
I had thought (when I composed the post to which you were responding) that I
was responding to one of Simon Mason's posts.
Sorry - my fault.
> "The police said they had no plans to charge anyone else in connection
> with the sabotage." [The Times again]
> This is police code for "we think we got the right man, we're not going
> to look for anybody else".
Do you not perceive a danger in that way of looking at things?
>>>> I don't know about him, but sport on the highway should not be
>>>> facilitated.
>>> So you'd effectively put an end to the various road closures that
>>> facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry
>>> other road races that take place in this country every year?
>> Yes.
>> They can be held in places other than on the road.
>
> I doubt it. To start with, we're talking about road racing
...which is a completely contrived concept.
If someone contrived a new "sport" of "motorway cycle racing" or "expressway
cycle racing", would you seriously expect stretches of the M40 or A34 to be
closed in order for it to take place?
> Where on earth would you hold a road race for 34,000 people (London
> Marathon) or 54,000 (Great North Run). These events take over wide
> streets. (Hint: you couldn't do it on a motor racing circuit. They're no
> wider than the streets used for these events, so the competitors would
> fill them. In big events, it can take upwards of half an hour for all
> the competitors to cross the line. If you did it at Silverstone (3 mile
> lap, one of the longer ones I believe) the leaders - who will run a mile
> roughly every 5 minutes - will have completed 1 lap before half the
> field has crossed the start line. Or rather they wouldn't, they'd be
> hopelessly and frustratingly trying to get past people running in silly
> costumes at the back of the field. And going to London to run a 26 mile
> route is a big thing for lots of people, I think a lot less people would
> want to run 9 laps of Silverstone. The London Marathon raised over £40m
> last year.. A lot of charities would be very unhappy if it was stopped,
> or had much reduced numbers).
Ah... you're a fan of the old hopping, skipping, running, jumping, standing
round for a bit then starting again.
>>> There's a few off road ones, but the large majority have at least
>>> some road closures particularly round the start/finish line, it
>>> simply wouldn't be safe otherwise. These events get probably millions
>>> of people involved in physical activity and raise a lot for charity.
>> And?
> Health problems arising from lack of exercise are a serious issue in
> this country and these events get people moving.
And stop many others from moving.
> And the amount they
> raise for charity is enormous. They're almost always held on Sundays,
> and in most places (highlands of Scotland excepted) there are easy
> alternative routes, so the negative economic impact must be small.
> You're entitled to your opinion that roads should not be closed,
That's very magnanimous of you.
> event of any size is not possible without using public roads and is not
> safe without road closures, so you're arguing that road racing should
> end in the UK.
Yes. That's right.
> Which would be a pity as we have some people who are
> rather good at it.
I'm sure I don't ned to remind you that there are other things that people
are good at which we would not facilitate. The fact that some people are
"good at it" (WTMM) is not enough.
> And the rest of the world, who have similar
> arrangements for similar events would think we were very strange.
>>> How about sporting events that are not on the road but require road
>>> closures because of the number of people they attract. I believe
>>> there are a lot of road closures when there is (was?) a grand prix at
>>> Silverstone.
>> Planning issues. I agree that there is a case for restricting the size
>> of *any* event if it causes undue traffic pressure in the locality. It
>> is in fact one of the things that the planning authority *must*
>> consider and take into account before the development even takes place.
> Ah, so the planners should have anticipated how big the All England
> Tennis Club's championship was going to get when it started (if they had
> planners in those days).
It would have been better if they had been able to.
Are the more recent developments at Silverstone as far back in history as that?
> Or the event should be limited in size. I
> should think the roads in that area can cope with less than half of what
> they actually get, even with closures.
Yes - the phrase I used was "undue traffic pressure". You can't prevent all
and any traffic congestion without closing the facility completely, and
that's not what I suggested.
Try applying for planning permission for a supermarket. See what the
authority's officers say about traffic generation and capacities. Applicants
cannot just do as they like. Why the proprietors of sports establishments get
more favourable treatment is a puzzle.
>> It's so easy to be liberal with other peoples' rights and/or money,
>> isn't it?
> What on earth has that got to do with enjoying a music festival I've
> been to in a Cotswold village where they close the road because it's the
> only flat bit of land on which to hold a public gathering? And people
> have rights, not just motorists. The rights of different interests are
> taken into account when deciding if a road can be closed.
> You don't seem to understand basic terminology on the Alexander Grosset
> issue, and you're just a curmudgeon about road closures who wants to
> stop people having a good time and raising money for charity.
People should have their good times in appropriate places.
> Hope you find the plot again soon. You might then find a way to do
> something better with your life than trolling. Over to you for the last
> word, I've got better things to do on a Friday evening.
So did I.
The Medway Handyman
But not cyclists, because nobody likes them.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
The Medway Handyman
Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists closing roads
for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.
Mr. Benn
news:hi72gn$u7b$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> However, if road closures are banned for cycling sports events, it
> seems only reasonable that that closures be banned for *all* sports
> events.
I agree.
But exceptions could be made only with the agreement of the local road
users. If they are consulted and are in agreement, then it would be
reasonable to allow the roads to be closed to other traffic. If there is
significant opposition to road closures, then the event should take place
elsewhere or not at all. Roads are not playgrounds.
I believe this should apply to any sporting event on public roads involving
cars, bicycles or runners. Not that it would make me very popular with
people interested in marathons!
Squashme
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> d...@telent.net wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>
> >> d...@telent.net wrote:
>
"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cancer charities
closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Fundraising/Bikingevents/EtapeCaledonia/EtapeCaledonia.aspx
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
cyclists on the roads.
--
Simon Mason
The Medway Handyman
> On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>> Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists closing
>> roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.
>>
>
> "Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cancer charities
> closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
> activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").
Oh yet another rib tickling sig alteration. How do you manage to think of
them? Obviously an undiscovered comic genius.
Big difference between pointless bike races & charity fundraising - but then
you wouldn't understand that would you?
Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists.
Marc
Mas...@bp.com
>
> > His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
> > of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
> > cyclists on the roads.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He doesn't appear to hold much to a Christian's point of view to me.
I'm glad I'm an atheist, if that is what religion does to you.
--
Simon Mason
Squashme
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"
>
> >> Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists closing
> >> roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.
>
> > "Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cancer charities
> > closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity fundraising
> > activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream of cyclists").
>
> Oh yet another rib tickling sig alteration. How do you manage to think of
> them? Obviously an undiscovered comic genius.
Jeez, I thought that I was vapid, but I take my hat off to you.
>
> Big difference between pointless bike races & charity fundraising - but then
> you wouldn't understand that would you?
No, you'll have to explain. Carry on. I'll really try to understand.
Perhaps if you typed in upper case (big letters).
>
> Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists.
>
Face it - the majority of motorists believe that they are above-
average drivers.
The Medway Handyman
She regards them as a PITA as well.
The Medway Handyman
Where on earth did you get that idea?
The Medway Handyman
> On 9 Jan, 15:31, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>>
>>> His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
>>> of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
>>> cyclists on the roads.
>>
>> He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He doesn't appear to hold much to a Christian's point of view to me.
I don't. God botherers are another PITA. Not as bad a cyclists mind you.
Marc
> On 9 Jan, 15:31, Marc<initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>>
>>> His daughter is a paramedic as well. Heaven know what she would make
>>> of her Dad's attitude to charity rides and his wishing to see dead
>>> cyclists on the roads.
>>
>> He's a god botherer, logic isn't something that comes easy to him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He doesn't appear to hold much to a Christian's point of view to me.
during the rest of the week.
The Medway Handyman
> On 9 Jan, 15:05, "The Medway Handyman"
> <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>>>> Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists
>>>> closing roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.
>>
>>> "Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cancer
>>> charities closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity
>>> fundraising activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream
>>> of cyclists").
>>
>> Oh yet another rib tickling sig alteration. How do you manage to
>> think of them? Obviously an undiscovered comic genius.
>
> Jeez, I thought that I was vapid, but I take my hat off to you.
>
>>
>> Big difference between pointless bike races & charity fundraising -
>> but then you wouldn't understand that would you?
>
> No, you'll have to explain. Carry on. I'll really try to understand.
> Perhaps if you typed in upper case (big letters).
Upper case? I'll have to add that to my list of clever phrases by cyclists.
It means big letters does it?
Its very simple. People will put up with idiot cyclists clogging up the
roads if its for a good cause e.g. charity. They get the hump when its
overgrown schoolboys playing bike races.
>> Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists.
>>
>
> Face it - the majority of motorists believe that they are above- average
> drivers.
Face it - thats completely irrelevant to the argument. Just an insult to
law adiding tax paying motorists.
Squashme
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 9 Jan, 15:05, "The Medway Handyman"
> > <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 9 Jan, 00:55, "The Medway Handyman"
>
> >>>> Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists
> >>>> closing roads for their rather silly schoolboy bike races.
>
> >>> "Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cancer
> >>> charities closing roads for their rather silly cancer charity
> >>> fundraising activities", says the Medway Hankyman (motto: "I dream
> >>> of cyclists").
>
> >> Oh yet another rib tickling sig alteration. How do you manage to
> >> think of them? Obviously an undiscovered comic genius.
>
> > Jeez, I thought that I was vapid, but I take my hat off to you.
>
> >> Big difference between pointless bike races & charity fundraising -
> >> but then you wouldn't understand that would you?
>
> > No, you'll have to explain. Carry on. I'll really try to understand.
> > Perhaps if you typed in upper case (big letters).
>
> Upper case? I'll have to add that to my list of clever phrases by cyclists.
> It means big letters does it?
>
> Its very simple. People will put up with idiot cyclists clogging up the
> roads if its for a good cause e.g. charity. They get the hump when its
> overgrown schoolboys playing bike races.
>
"The Etape Caledonia is a major fundraising event for Macmillan Cancer
Support." (Macmillan site)
"Organisers of the event, which raised more that £200,000 for
Macmillan Cancer Support, have pledged to run the race next year
despite the incident." (BBC)
So this was not a good cause, but just "overgrown schoolboys playing
bike races", was it?
Face it - you are a silly, sad, ignorant, little man.
DavidR
>> facilitate the hundred or more marathons, half-marathons and sundry other
>> road races that take place in this country every year?
>
> Yes.
>
> They can be held in places other than on the road.
>
> it?
When there is a large event, "motorists" become a tiny minority of road
users. Road users are what roads are for aren't they? At the Reading half
marathon I gather there are sometimes one or two people that try to make a
pointless point.
I have to say how nice it has been to go out in the snow recently, with
people being forced to forego their car and put their boots on. We should
have a few enforced no drive days every year.
The Medway Handyman
Its been a pleasure not having cyclists clogging up the roads & being a
nuisance. Cars are moving pretty much as usual.
The Medway Handyman
Which bit of 'good cause e.g. charity' did you fail to understand?
> Face it - you are a silly, sad, ignorant, little man.
None of the above.
DavidR
"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AV62n.24176$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
As a road user in a car, I find I am having to spend whole journeys staring
at the bumper of other road user's cars clogging the roads. Time spent
looking at the backside (*) of a road user on a bike is, ooh, milliseconds.
Oh, I forgot, road users in cars pay tax so apparently they don't count.
(*) And one I see regularly happens to be a lot better looking than the
bumper of any car.
--
DavidR, a road user that pays tax.
Squashme
I'm glad to see that you finally came round to accepting that the
cycle race for charity was a good cause and the tacks were a bad idea.
It's a change from:-
"How fucking funny is that?
'Hundreds of cyclists were left with punctures'
Ha ha ha! "
"Its quite clear that the local residents simply didn't want hundreds
of
cyclotwats fucking up their road network. Because they regard
cyclists as a
PITA - just like the majority of the population."
"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists closing
roads
for their rather silly schoolboy bike races."
"Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists."
Judith Smith
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:33:05 -0000, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hi71jn$hnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on
>>>> the road
>
>> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
>
>Really? You have evidence for that? Not proceeding in no way demonstrate
>he didn't do it. I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case
>was subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
>facts out and prove their innocence.
>
>I suspect he has a letter saying they are not going to proceed which in no
>way says he didn't do it, just that it's not in the public interest to
>proceed. We know there was enough evidence to charge him.
Really?
On what "evidence" was he charged?
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Judith Smith
wrote:
You may think so - many will disagree - his reputation will have been
enhanced in the eyes of many.
Peter Grange
Two "many"s in one sentence, and another one in the sig. Very precise.
Peter Grange
<judit...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:41:42 -0000, leandr42 <lean...@googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:33:05 -0000, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>>> "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:hi71jn$hnr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> I don't agree with the actions of the person who put carpet tacks on
>>>>> the road
>>
>>> Allegedly. He has a certificate to say he didn't do it.
>>
>>Really? You have evidence for that? Not proceeding in no way demonstrate
>>he didn't do it. I've heard of people who were wrongly accused, the case
>>was subsequently dropped, and they were disappointed not to get all the
>>facts out and prove their innocence.
>>
>>I suspect he has a letter saying they are not going to proceed which in no
>>way says he didn't do it, just that it's not in the public interest to
>>proceed. We know there was enough evidence to charge him.
>
>Really?
>
>On what "evidence" was he charged?
Three "many"s in your previous post, and demanding "evidence" in this
one. Bit of a one-way-street innit?